Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Breotan wrote:It seems that according to the rules I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting. I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.

Not really.. they have a blanket premeasuring statement now.

In general, players are not allowed to measure
any distances except when the rules call for it (e.g.
after declaring an assault or firing at an enemy, to
work out a rule’s area of effect, when deploying
their forces, etc).

God, I really hope the BT book gets leaked soon too-after reading this thing...I want my new BT. Of course, I think I can use current BT fairly well with these changes, if they're real.

The huge, important question is this though: Is anyone planning on playtesting any of these rules later? See how it works out and get a jump start on the edition? Let us know if they work well in practice, not just on paper. My buddies are excited and we're probably going to try it out at some point in the near future.

Also, I can't believe that just 15 or so hours after leak, we already have 15 pages and growing. You'd think we were all rabid vultures, waiting hungrily for information to change our gaming...oh...wait...

From what I can discern, 'flyer' is a unit type isn't it and so if a unit doesn't have 'flyer' in it's entry then it won't be EV 6.

Skogkat wrote:Did anyone else notice that in the "Codex Update" Tau are included, but Black Templars, Necrons, and Sisters are all absent?

I'm sure that it could be that BT and Sisters could have just been not added yet. Necrons may not need an update with their very recent codex, but it also stands to reason that BT may get a new codex before the release of 6th ed, thus negating the need for an update.

That also makes the point that (assuming this is all legit anyway), Tau will NOT be getting a new codex before the release of 6th Ed.

The files are dated may 2011, meaning the second half of 2011 hadn't happened yet. So it seems likely (assuming they're real) that those codexes weren't actually nailed down yet when this was worked on last. So perhaps they were waiting to add necron until they were sure what was happening.

As for tau, either there isn't a codex before 6th edition, or they thought in may 2011 that there wouldn't or might not be. It's not a sure bet with all of the time passed.

So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?

Elaborate troll?

Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?

Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?

If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.



On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.

They got better in most other respects, so it's not a huge nerf. Being stationary for firing purposes then still firing back is powerful.

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

Jodiju wrote:From what I can discern, 'flyer' is a unit type isn't it and so if a unit doesn't have 'flyer' in it's entry then it won't be EV 6.

Yeah, it will essentially apply only to actual "Flyer" unit types (mostly Apoc) and when units with the Supersonic rule make a supersonic move, they are considered flyers until the start of their next turn.

Brother SRM wrote:

Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?

Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.

Being able to fire mutliple times is a risk/reward for movement as well. The game finally has decision making in it beyond target prioritization.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, trying to find a clarification, but can't see it atm. Has anyone spotted if flying infantry count as flying for evasion purposes?

If you mean do they count as flyers to get the 6EV, no they don't.



On another subject, I did notice Tau did take a bit of a nerf. Currently if you want a battle suit to split fire from the rest of his unit, you only need a target lock. Witht this new ruleset, you need a multi-tracker and target lock.

They got better in most other respects, so it's not a huge nerf. Being stationary for firing purposes then still firing back is powerful.

Oh I agree, and really you usually only gave one model in the unit the target lock, so you could do both as hard-wired on a team leader. Just something I saw that I thought I'd point out.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

What has gwar been doing all this time in exile...?


If it was him, he'd get a tip of the hat from me.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him

Brother SRM wrote:

Notod wrote:So templars are a go as next Codex, right? Also, is it me, or does this evasion thing, kinda make the game a hell of a lot more, balanced / stupid?

Balanced/stupid? I think it discourages parking lots and gunlines and encourages mobility, while giving you a risk/reward system with cover. I like it a lot.

When its spun like that it sounds great, but as a player who follows the ideals of run n gun till you can scrum em, it sounds bad, for the fact that when i do eventually scrum them, there forces may just be innumerable for my forces to take them,

This sounds a whole lot like AT-43. It wouldn't surprise me if GW just snatched up all the rules they liked because the system is dead. It was a good system and if GW just improves upon then I'll be very optimistic about 6th.

I didn't follow At-43, but it seems like they combined Apoc, Planet Strike, WHFB, and the move+move/move+shoot/shoot+shoot system that you find in a lot of games these days.

ShumaGorath wrote:I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.

This could be GW's way of establishing an "open playtest."

Shandara wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him

Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.

If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.

Has anyone else noticed that these rules make it possible for a single unit to charge an enemy unit, destroy it, THEN shoot at an enemy transport and destroy it and THEN charge the guys inside all in one turn?

I believe you can do all this after deepstriking as well...

The style of writing is IMO better than most GW books I've seen.

pretre wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:

pretre wrote: I guess it is possible that there is a playtest copy of the unreleased BT with this somewhere, but that's unlikely.

Why would that be unlikely? If play testers have access to beta rulebook (obviously), they should by all accounts have access to beta codices with which to test the rules.

Because if you had the BT codex as well as the new rulebook, why wouldn't you release it?

@Shumagorath: Not sure that I buy the 'different format' argument, but it is possible.

Because you're lazy, or you didn't have access to it all, or you didn't care, or you forgot to copy paste that file, or it got corrupted, or it was a .cdr format and you didn't recognize it, or it's still in indesign, etc etc etc. :edit: The internet played a trick on me and i read and responded to the same post twice. Derp derp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Leon wrote:Has anyone else noticed that these rules make it possible for a single unit to charge an enemy unit, destroy it, THEN shoot at an enemy transport and destroy it and THEN charge the guys inside all in one turn?

I believe you can do all this after deepstriking as well...

Can you prepare for an assault as well as charge at the same time? I thought they were conflicting.

Ah, fair enough. Oddly it wasn't so much for me, but my worries of facing Aura's Hellions and Scourges.

Manchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.

This could be GW's way of establishing an "open playtest."

I don't think they're that sneaky.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Shandara wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him

Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.

If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.

Let's see, who can we think of with "a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them", with a motive to cause a little stir in the Dakka community... uh, Gwar anyone?

warboss wrote:

Breotan wrote:It seems that according to the rules I can premeasure my assault moves but not my shooting. I'd have rather seen the prohibition on premeasuring done away with altogether, given the premeasuring already built into their RoB boards. It's not perfect but I can live with it.

Not really.. they have a blanket premeasuring statement now.

In general, players are not allowed to measure
any distances except when the rules call for it (e.g.
after declaring an assault or firing at an enemy, to
work out a rule’s area of effect, when deploying
their forces, etc).

Yea, I missed that one. Guess they channelled the ghost of Gary Gygax to help them with their rules layout/organization. :/

I must be one of the few people who doesn't actually like these new rules.

Far too complicated and far too many special rules.

It's a more complicated system than Fantasy (by far), and I don't think GW would risk losing their core audience.

Hah. I note Warseer has banned even the discussion of these rules. Their mod policy has reached new lows of spinelessness and cowardice.

Popsicle wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Shandara wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Popsicle wrote:Elaborate troll?

I'd say this thing represents at least 100 man-hours or more.

The telling thing is that the rules are pretty much complete, covering everything you'd need. Even copy/pasting/inventing from the earlier leaks, you'd spend a lot of time making sure the references between sections are all correct. In short you'd need to an awful lot of editing and checking. If one person could do all of that in 100 hours, maybe GW should hire him

Yeah, not only are the typos and formatting issues consistent with a group working on a shared document (the page number references drift a little and are often off by a page or two, owing to content having been added later) but the rules themselves are remarkably detailed with all the i-s dotted and the t-s crossed.

If it's a hoax, the perpetrator would have to have had a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them. If it's a hoax, this person really does need to get hired by GW. These rules are profoundly well engineered and have had a lot more thought put into them than the generalized rumors and guesses we've seen already.

Let's see, who can we think of with "a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of every codex and the ability to locate conflicts between them", with a motive to cause a little stir in the Dakka community... uh, Gwar anyone?

Yeah. Basically it's either them or it's GW. Those are the only real possibilities.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I feel sorry for GW. If this is all legit somebody is probably going to lose their job.

This could be GW's way of establishing an "open playtest."

I don't think they're that sneaky.

Sneaky nothing. I don't mean the company itself. If my professional reputation depended on my rules being well-received by an extremely critical community, I'd want some wide-ranging feedback before going to press even if corporate was not down. I'm not saying I would leak it against the wishes of my superiors. Just that I would want some feedback.